US society cannot so easily be placed into a maker/taker divide

In today’s America, government benefits flow to large numbers of people who are encouraged to vote for politicians who’ll keep them coming. The benefits are paid for by other people who, being less numerous, can’t muster enough votes to put this to a stop.

Over time, this causes the economy to do worse, pushing more people into the moocher class and further strengthening the politicians whose position depends on robbing Peter to pay Paul. Because, as they say, if you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can be pretty sure of getting Paul’s vote.

The column is something of a mess. It is aimed both at corporate entities that receive subsidies and individuals who receive various types of aid (e.g., people who get unemployment benefits and those who received help on their mortgages). It also starts from a flawed premise: that people vote solely based on material gains that they think that they will get. Were this true, most voters would (to pick one simple example) be avidly voting to raise taxes on the wealthy, and yet this is not the case.

A fatal flaw in the maker/taker dichotomy (and which renders it useless) is that we do not have a situation in which Group A is made up of those who only “take” and Group B consists of those who only “make.” Even if we start off with the example that Reynolds uses to launch his column, farm subsidies, the bottom line is that it does not fit the maker/taker categories. If we consult a list of the top recipients of farm subsidies we get a list of corporations. So, on the one hand they are “takers” of government subsidies, and yet on the other it is nonsensical to not also call them “makers.” Of course, the fact that Reynolds’ evidence of this particular problem are lyrics from a country song, perhaps I am expecting too much nuance.

Now, do I think that there is room for reform (if not outright elimination) of these subsidies? Yes, I do, but this is not some simplistic situation in which we are “robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

Indeed, the number of people who are takers and takers only is quite small. Even the working poor who receive numerous benefits still contribute labor (and taxes) to the society. And absolutely no one is a maker only. We all benefit from national defense, police protection, fire protection, roads, the court system, financial protections, public schools (even if we did not attend them), and so forth.

Reynolds is not engaging in analysis of the complexities of public policy here. Rather, he is promulgating a simplistic ideology that pretends like the world consists of two types of people: the hard-working tax-paying types and the moochers. However, this is not reality. For example, it ignores the fact that if my neighbor can avoid foreclosure, that helps me too. It ignores the fact that if GM goes out of business that it does not happen in an economic and social vacuum. It ignores that if the unemployed have some money, they spend it (and that helps them avoid foreclosure and helps keep businesses in operation, etc).

In short: there is not a simple maker/taker divide here.

This doesn’t mean that there is no room to criticize any of the policies in question, but it is to say that the maker/taker paradigm will lead to false evaluations and false conclusions about the policies.

Now, I agree with Reynolds that the following is problematic:

If you spend $1 million on lobbying, and get a $1 billion subsidy from the government, that’s a thousand-fold return on your money.

However, all of this leads Reynolds to an odd assertion inference in his conclusion:

A federal government that actually operated within the limits intended by the Framers would be much smaller, much less capable of creating economic distortion, and much less attractive to moochers and the politicians they enable. The bigger the pot of honey, the more flies it attracts.

Undoing what Richard Epstein calls “the mistakes of 1937,” in which most of those limits on federal power were removed by the Supreme Court, would go far toward fixing the problem.

That, of course, would require a Supreme Court with a more traditional view of the Constitution’s limits on federal power. Which would require a president interested in appointing justices with such views.

Something to keep in mind, between now and November.

First, there is no particular reason to assume that had we maintained pre-New Deal federalism that we would not have seen subsidies and the other programs described in the column developing at the state level or, for that matter, developing via a different route at the federal level.* This line of thinking is a strange artifact of a particular strain of right libertarianism that assume somehow that if policy authority were devolved to (or had remained with) the states that state governments would continue to behave as they did in the late 19th Century. Such a notion is based on the flawed premise that the real reason for the growth of the importance of government in the 20th Century was solely an artifact of the relationship of the federal and state government when, in fact, the main variable was that of the development of first a fully industrial and then a post-industrial economy. In truth, it was those forces that drove the Progressive movement and the New Deal in the first place, not the other way around. Causality matters. Even if somehow the federal government had been contained in a way that people like Reynolds appear to wish had been the case, the issues of industrialization would have to have been addressed by state governments.**

Why so many people hang their fantasies on shifting understandings of federalism over time is a baffling question.

Second, since we know that Reynolds is a GOP booster he is clearly suggesting that the solution to these problems is voting GOP. This is problematic. For one thing, we aren’t going back to the pre-New Deal version of federalism regardless of who wins in November, so that’s a nonstarter. For another, if the main issue is that lobbyists have too much power, I would submit that this is very much a bipartisan problem, so if Reynolds truly wants systemic change, he needs to start leading a real third way movement. Worse, however, for his position: the Republicans are the party that is more sympathetic to corporate power and their lobbyists. In other words: his suggested solution is a combination of pure fantasies (retroactive change to an imagined federalism) and boosting the party that is worse on the subject he is rallying against. Of course, it is difficult to figure out what Reynolds thinks is the main problem: is it lobbyists or Supreme Court Justices? Farm subsidies or unemployment benefits? Crony capitalism or out of balance federalism?

On the one hand, this is just some column, so who cares? On the other, however, it does pick up a meme (maker/taker) that undergirds a lot of conservative politics at the moment. It is the kind of thinking that fueled Romney’s gaffe over the very poor the other day, or that there are 47% of the population that doesn’t pay taxes.***

It is ideology, not analysis. It certainly eschews the realities of policymaking. This is a failing I assume from politicians on the stump. It is not one that I expect from law professors.

_____________
*Too many people assume that the federal government first acquired powers like the income tax and then started to find policies upon which to spend the cash. Instead, it was the other way around: policy demands led to the need to find ways to address those demands.

**A simple example: the problem of how to care for an aging population in an industrial, urbanized society would have emerged and would have required solutions.

***That is: the formulation that tells us that 47% of the population does not pay taxes without the appropriate qualifier of “income” in front of “taxes” along with the important omission that income taxes are but one category of taxes paid by Americans. Indeed, the fact of the matter is that it is impossible to escape paying taxes in the US (that is unless one is a homeless person who only lives by foraging). As such, basing arguments over the 47/53 divide is to build an argument on the foundation of a half-truth (at best).

About Steven L. Taylor

Steven L. Taylor is Professor of Political Science and Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Troy University. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on Twitter

It’s a Glenn Reynolds column, so of course it’s a mess. There’s a reason the guy has devoted himself to one line blog posts for most of the past decade.

I think it’s utterly hilarious that a tenured, pension-eligible employee of the state of Tennessee is given any credibility when he complains about takers. The man will earn six figures every year until the day he dies, complaining about how too many people rely on the government the entire way.

And it’s a sign of the inherent corruption of the system that makers and takers overlap, not something redemptive. That just lets the political class pretend to everyone that they’re somehow getting a special deal, while they use taxpayer money to buy votes. That’s discussed here:

@Glenn Reynolds: If you’re concerned about the corrupting influence of money and lobbying in politics (I am as well) why don’t you advocate an amendment to ban corporate money from politics? It would certainly have some gravitas considering your stature.

Taylor does have some very good points that could have led to a very good discussion over Prof. Reynold’s assertions. Instead he leads off by calling the column a mess (it assuredly is not) and attacking Reynolds political leanings. Then of course, his bully pulpit (Console, MM, Hoyticus, etc.) join in to continue the personal attacks instead of the debate.

What a sad pattern of misanthropic incivility. It is almost as if Taylor et. al are not confident of their positions….

@Hoyticus: I don’t think that’s possible, and I don’t think it addresses the problem anyway, as corporate money is only one kind of corruption (and is sometimes a form of self-defense against other kinds). The political-ethics/contribution approach is for suckers.

I wrote a book on that called “The Appearance of Impropriety,” with Peter Morgan, if you’re interested.

This article made me stupider. Really my brain is numb from the obfuscation. If you could harvest the mental energy in this comment section, you could brown some toast. Maybe. If you all thought really hard.

Some twits are complaining about Glenn Reynolds, a professor of Constitution Law and Tennessee University, discussing ‘makers’ vs. ‘takers’, claiming he, as a tenured prof, is a ‘taker’.

I suggest that the difference betwixt ‘makers’ and ‘takers’ is an evaluation of their contribution to society, not necessarily what they get from society.

As a producer, the Blogfather, has done MORE for this country than all of the naysayers on this thread have done. And that includes everything these twits have done since their father jumped their mother.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[If you had a Life in the first place, you’ll never have a mid-life crisis.]

Why is it then when a simple, but not simplistic, assertion is made that the Left begins to sound like Captain Queeg? Why do I always hear the clicking of ball bearings as you earnestly defend the indefensible status quo – that there is an enormous group of people in this country who feel goddam entitled to a government check is beyond saying – the takers from the shadow banking class, the crony capitalists, the SEIU/gov union thugs, the daily con jobs at the SSI disability office- the list is endless. You Lefties are running out of other people’s money – you have distorted the marketplace with central planning debt fiascos all over the globe. Now the chickens are coming home as the sovereign indebtedness blows up your crap games. Sorry, Charlie, “an aging population in an industrial, urbanized society would have emerged and would have required solutions” from central planners is nonsense. Got it? NONSENSE.

Steven Taylor wrote:
*snip*
Second, since we know that Reynolds is a GOP booster he is clearly suggesting that the solution to these problems is voting GOP.
*snip*
Interesting two-fer: he manges to slip both Bulverism and ignorance of Reynolds’ dissatisfaction of the GOP recent idiocy in one sentence.

@Hoyticus: How about union money? Can we ban that from politics too? How money from the environmental industry? The racial preference industry? How about Big Education? And can we ban the value to political campaigns of corporations that happen to own newspapers and television stations and tilt (or avalanche) their “coverage” toward one side? Or only those corporations that don’t own those things?

Steven Taylor wrote:
*snip*
Second, since we know that Reynolds is a GOP booster he is clearly suggesting that the solution to these problems is voting GOP.
*snip*
Interesting two-fer: he manages to slip both Bulverism and ignorance of Reynolds’ dissatisfaction with recent GOP idiocy in one sentence.

@Hoyticus:
Why only corporations (who donate to whomever they think will win anyhow)?
What about unions who forcibly extract ‘fees’ from their members and then use that money to perpetuate public policies for their own benefit?
We could go back and forth on this, but the best way is to reduce the overall size and impact of government at all levels.
And please note that I said reduce, not eliminate.

I love you guys, too. But I developed this at much greater length in this paper for Cato.

In the paper you do indeed argue that expansion in Congressional power to regulate commerce has made the lobbyist’s job easier. But you simply assume such would not be the case had federal power remained constrained by the Tenth Amendment. Perhaps it would have, but perhaps the problem would have been even worse in a world where multinationals with revenues exceeding state budgets were able to completely overwhelm any and all competing interests.

I’m sure you guys realize that law professors at good univeristies often have outstanding resumes. Reynolds is published at Columbia (and several other places) and I believe he went to Yale, and he teaches courses on the Constitution. People who can compete for those jobs are paid well because of how the market functions.

When someone has a high paying JOB, that is not necessarily a “taker” role, though I admit I can be skeptical of the contributions of most lawyers out there.

I’m sure you all realize he’s got some ridiculously popular blog, but if you ever tried to blog like that, you’d realize it’s probably more work than most are willing to invest. His success is more of the “maker” variety.

Yeah, I’m sure some of you disagree with him on politics, but that doesn’t mean he’s the devil.

“It is the kind of thinking that fueled Romney’s gaffe over the very poor the other day”

No, no, no. The idea is that is we have less dependency, even those at the bottom of the charts will prosper MUCH more, which is something I wish Gov Romney understood better. If people get off unemployment and food stamps, even if they are eligible, and pay their way, that will help others. If the wealthy are more rewarded for their investments, they will invest more. If you tax them too much, at least some risks just don’t make sense anymore.

“we know that Reynolds is a GOP booster he is clearly suggesting that the solution to these problems is voting GOP. This is problematic. […]”

This was the same guy complaining about ideology over analysis?

” he needs to start leading a real third way movement. Worse, however, for his position: the Republicans are the party that is more sympathetic to corporate power and their lobbyists. ”

What article are you talking about?

No, no, no. There’s a huge difference between a free market and what you’re talking about! Well connected companies can thrive in communist countries, and often are sophisticated in how they deal with bankruptcy laws, bailouts, taxes, and other artificial government structures. This is quite a departure from Reynolds’s discussion of personal responsibility.

Honestly, his article didn’t seem that messy to me, and you seem to be reacting to it with a lot of personal stuff that distracts from an interesting debate. Also, a lot of the things you’re saying sound like “I assume he must mean this thing he didn’t even hint at, and I really don’t like that.”

In the meantime out here in the real world , the govt. keeps giving away tax dollars to Solyndra, keeps funding GM Volts that nobody is going to buy, keeps shoveling money to their crony friends for boondoggles like the ‘California high-speed rail”. Takers and Makers is simply shorthand for what is going on – Yes GM is actually BOTH – so what? The point is that the “moocher” part is what needs to be eliminated. Are BOTH parties guilty – absolutely – but the White House is currently occupied by the Democrats, so the focus tends to be on their policies, not those of people- not -in -charge- of -the -current -mess.

So Professor policymaker – how do we prevent rent-seeking corporations, unions, and other entities from ripping off the taxpayer to the tune of trillions of dollars?

I love you guys, too. But I developed this at much greater length in this paper for Cato.

In the paper you do indeed argue that expansion in Congressional power to regulate commerce has made the lobbyist’s job easier. But you simply assume such would not be the case had federal power remained constrained by the Tenth Amendment. Perhaps it would have, but perhaps the problem would have been even worse in a world where multinationals with revenues exceeding state budgets were able to completely overwhelm any and all competing interests.

Nor does the paper justify your post, which by any credible measure must be judged to stand on its own merits. To expect the public to read the post, then interpret it in the context of a paper you wrote 27 years ago for Cato requires some suspension of disbelief. You should have made a stronger, more comprehensive argument on your site if you expect others not to evaluate it in isolation, which is in fact how you presented it.

Prof. Taylor, please don’t be obtuse. Clearly Prof. Reynolds is not describing a simple duality in which two categories of people ‘take’ and ‘make’ respectively. What you call ‘nuance’ is of course the problem he described- that people and corporations spend their effort seeking the government’s largess instead of producing and innovating.

I am not familiar enough with your writing to know if this is typical, but it’s not an encouraging introduction.

I love you guys, too. But I developed this at much greater length in this paper for Cato.

In the paper you do indeed argue that expansion in Congressional power to regulate commerce has made the lobbyist’s job easier. But you simply assume such would not be the case had federal power remained constrained by the Tenth Amendment. Perhaps it would have, but perhaps the problem would have been even worse in a world where multinationals with revenues exceeding state budgets were able to completely overwhelm any and all competing interests.

Nor does the paper justify your post, which by any credible measure must be judged to stand on its own merits. To expect the public to read the post, then interpret it in the context of a paper you wrote 27 years ago for Cato requires some suspension of disbelief. You should have made a stronger, more comprehensive argument on your site if you expect others not to evaluate the post in isolation, which is in fact how you presented it.

Why would anyone predicate “safety net” or any other kind of spending on percentage of GDP? If we have a recession (i.e. the gdp shrinks) we should cut spending? Are there magically less people on welfare, or less kids to educate, or less borders to secure, or less crime to prevent when the GDP shrinks?

We should spend enough to complete the missions we want completed. Basing spending on some arbitrary number is rather asinine.

The key to Prof. Taylor’s article is his confusing complexities with corruption. Anyone here paying attention to the EU these days? No? I thought as much.

Anyone who uses “third way” and “paradigm” and attempting to be serious is simply to engage in a modern day humbug, believing inane slogans represents thought and discourse.

A third way, really? I thought that howler died with the 1990’s and Bill Clinton’s stated belief that the era of big government was over. Paradigm is even no longer used by such buncombe artists as Tony Roberts.

Well, Prof. Taylor is in academe, where genuine wit and intelligence are generally discouraged. Say what you want about Prof. Reynold, but he does posses those qualities.

Republicans are the party that is more sympathetic to corporate power and their lobbyists.

Precisely how that particular bald-faced lie came to be Conventional Wisdom, constantly repeated, is a mystery in the day of publicly-accessible contributions, not to mention Enron.

This is not to say that there’s a huge difference, but there is a significant one. Republicans are in favor of production; production requires the means of production; resources must be taken out of the general economy and embodied in the means of production; that isn’t “fair”, because any brick used to build a factory can’t be used to build a house for a Poor Person. Republicans therefore favor building factories over building houses, because the result is more bricks and more houses in the long run.

It is a fact, easily confirmed by a little research nowadays, that major corporations and their executives donate overwhelmingly to Democrats. If “Republicans are more sympathetic” to their aims, that’s just a little counter-productive, isn’t it? Not to mention counter-intuitive, until you start realizing what’s going on. Democrats are far more likely to regulate and tax their upstart competitors out of business, leaving them free to build giant, unwieldy bureaucratic regimes, and Democrats are enormously more likely to set up elaborate systems of “benefits” paid for with Somebody Else’s Money instead of that coming out of the Corporate Bottom Line.

The inevitable result is “crony capitalism”, in which it’s impossible to get anything done without a close relationship with the bureaucrats and their semi-elected semi-bosses. As the system matures, it becomes the perverted version of Marxism so familiar nowadays. The enterprise and its activity will continue to exist, lest everybody starve; the resources devoted to building and maintaining it will continue to come out of the economy, not available for building houses for The Poor; and “President of General Motors” segues indistinguishably into “People’s Commissioner for Light Vehicle Production, North-Central Region” without a hiccup — or any material change in either the duties or the privileges of the individual occupying the position. Sr. Mussolini had a name for that system, now reserved as a tag identifying those who oppose its establishment.

@Rick C: Public employee unions should be. Who are they organizing against? Taxpayers. Who do they negotiate with? In most places the they’re Democrats that the unions have poured millions of dollars into.

So here’s the deal…if Public Employees want to organize they have to give up all political lobbying and fundraising as a conflict of interest.

I think it’s funny that Taylor called Professor Reynold’s piece a “mess.”

I can only assume that by “mess” the author meant that it was poorly argued. But if one is going to call someone else’s argument piece poorly argued, one ought to make sure that one’s own argument is sound or, at least, not a mess itself. Instead, Taylor messily pretends that Reynold’s piece relies on a flawed premise: “That people vote solely based on material gains that they think that they will get. ”

Nowhere in Reynold’s piece do we see a reliance on that premise.

Were I to guess, I’d guess that Mr. Taylor created a straw man in order to attack a bigger man, in order to get page views. In which case, well played, Mr. Taylor. You win this round.

I actually like the Reynolds fairly well, but I do think that it invites the sort of identity politics we see up-thread. And in some cases that identity is confused. If your employer lobbies the government, is it mooching, or protecting itself? Well, your if your identity is “maker” then you’re OK, right?

Anyone who wants to reduce the government to the size it was back in 1880, or 1871, or whatever, be my guest.

Don’t be surprised if China eats our lunch, however.

I’m really surprised that you haven’t screamed bloody murder about the amount of $$ that went into WWII. I mean, if your free market theory actually worked, we wouldn’t have had to develop the Manhattan Project at all–an atomic bomb would have magically arisen due to the demand from the government. Right?

Three sentences into Taylor’s piece one thing becomes obvious: it’s a mess.

Taylor hallucinates that Reynold’s piece ‘starts from a flawed premise: that
people vote solely based on material gains that they think they will get’

Here’s what Reynolds says: ‘In today’s America, government benefits flow to
large numbers of people who are *encouraged to vote* for politicians who’ll
keep them coming’.(my emphasis)

Do you think that presupposes people vote SOLELY on material gains
they anticipate? Good. I don’t think so either.

Obviously, Reynold’s statement does not rest on Taylor’s preposterous
premise, nor does anything in Reynold’s piece suggest that it does.
I don’t think even Taylor would deny that a government benefits would
encourage people to vote to keep the benefits coming.

With reasoning as poor as this at the beginning, there is little
chance that any subsequent criticism will likely be instructive.

Quite a mediocre response by Professor Taylor. It has no serious central counter-argument, nor seriously undermines any of the core ideas in Professor Reynold’s essay. This is just a lot of chaff being blown about that boils down to “It’s all very complicated! Reynolds hasn’t addressed all those complications! And besides, how do we know in an alternate universe it would be all that different?”

This is the kind of essay students turn in when they really have no strong counter-argument to a thesis they don’t like. You pick nits, more or less, and roll your eyes at the naivete of the thesis. Which is at best a B effort, since (1) you can pick nits in anything and (2) any thesis that isn’t developed over the course of six fat dense books is going to be oversimplified. And this is a newspaper column, ferfuxsake! Obviously meant as a 20,000-foot view, a philosophical starting point — and, as that, it is quite effective.

I can only be wryly amused at the irony that the professor (Taylor) indulges in an effort at antithesis that if delivered by one of his own students would undoubtably earn his substantial and well-merited criticism.

Reynolds is not engaging in analysis of the complexities of public policy here. Rather, he is promulgating an simplistic ideology that pretends like the world consists of two types of people: the hard-working tax-paying types and the moochers.

This is just another example of the Black VS White – Good VS Evil digital arguments the right wing always makes. They are simply unable to see shades of gray.

I think there are some key points missed In Dr. Taylor’s observations.

1) We transitioned from an agricultural to an industrial economy. Family sizes decreased. Things really came to a head in the 30s with the Great Depression, abetted by the Dust Bowl, and poverty among the elderly peaked. Families were not large enough and localized enough, having moved to where the jobs existed, to care for those elderly. The New Deal became a response to a need. For those of you with relative still alive who lived through the Great Depression, I would advise talking with them, if they will talk. Many find it too painful to discuss.

2) I think that there is a longstanding false view of of the 1800s. Government was small. It was also incredibly corrupt by modern standards. Government was owned by special interests. As Adam Smith noted, businessmen do not embrace competition, they avoid it when able to do so.

@john personna:
I have advocated ending the mortgage deduction for years. I teach it. I would probably decrease it by 10% per year over 10 years to allow people to adjust, but it ought to to. It’s actually a subsidy to the housing [building and real estate sales] rather than to the vast majority of taxpayers. [And, yes, I get the deduction.]
How about you? End union contributions to campaigns? Money and labor? Or are you the hypocrite you appear to be charging others with being?

There are no Platonic ideals in the real world, but there is very probably
at least one US citizen maker who takes nothing back; An entrepreneur
living abroad, perhaps. That single exception does nothing to change
Prof. Taylor’s argument, any more than his observation that there are no
ideal takers or makers changes the validity of Prof. Reynold’s observation
that the statistical distribution of US citizens based on their make/take
ratio has a peak at either end. If the horns of that dilemma tilt too far
toward the takers at the expense of the makers, the country will collapse
into a Hobbesian mess, out of which an authoritarian state will arise,
in which Reynolds is more likely than Taylor to live long and perspire. >:)

@john personna: I think you’re over-reading what I wrote. You mentioned one specific group to be banned and I merely asked about another, generally believed to be in opposition to the group you named. You drawing the conclusion you did says rather more about you than me.

I would allow unlimited donations by individuals on the condition that a) they can’t be spent until totally identified and easily findable in a searchable database *and* that govt shrink by at least half. To get the money out, make it less useful to put it in.

“Perhaps it would have, but perhaps the problem would have been even worse in a world where multinationals with revenues exceeding state budgets were able to completely overwhelm any and all competing interests.”

I, for one, would be happy to find out. Conjecture against fact doesn’t win many arguments so let’s try it.

@john personna: I’m generally in favor of gas/diesel taxes that cover the cost of highway, street, etc building and maintenance so long as the ‘takers’ aren’t allowed to take any of it for mass transit, HSR, light rail, or any of the other much-loved attempts to decide where and when the proles may travel. At the very least, anyone who advocates those things should never again to be allowed to ride on anything else or else walk or ride a bike [and that should be taxed accordingly for the roads they ride on].

You say “It also starts from a flawed premise: that people vote solely based on material gains that they think that they will get. Were this true, most voters would be avidly voting to raise taxes on the wealthy, and yet this is not the case (to pick one simple example).”

Steve, I’m pleased you attempted to defend Taylor’s piece on its merits rather than joining in with the usual leftist ad hominem attacks.

I don’t think the historical points from Taylor help much. Without economics to evaluate institutional changes it’s difficult to determine what the changes mean. A simple application
of Mill’s method of difference suggests the unprecedented government response to the ’29 downturn being the cause of an unprecedented lengthening of the downturn, thus creating the great depression. In short, the New Deal hurt the economy more than it helped at the time, leaving aside the clear benefits to a segment of the population after the depression.

Of course even the obvious benefits of the New Deal must be evaluated alongside the costs.
And that requires taking into account its ‘unseen’ impact. But that’s the difference between an informative social analysis and a case of special pleading. The able social scientists uses economics to determine what the unseen costs of a policy are. And it seems to me to be no accident that statists never quite bring that aspect of society into full view, because it would damn all their major policies.

I am old enough to remember when you could NOT obtain a mortgage for a property worth more than $500,000. The deduction has outlived its value as a subsidy. End it for property worth over $250,000.

It has been my impression that the highway trust fund is not part of the general fund. The outrageous highway bill of 2006 was criticized on these very grounds. The trust fund was there. Why not spend it ? Of course that predated Obama and his “Stimulus.”

Stop and think about that Jorg. In some cases, strategic investments in alternatives benefit the driver. We want our roads to be faster, right? If we can get other people to walk or in cost-effective mass transit or bike lanes, then they are.

It becomes counterproductive, say, if a road development blocks pedestrian travel, and encourages more people into their cars.

@Sean: Seriously… this guy makes almost makes Noam Chomsky seem coherent. Reading this was the academic equivalent of trying to eat a cinder block; with all its nutritional value and ease of digestion.

The able social scientists uses economics to determine what the unseen costs of a policy are. And it seems to me to be no accident that statists never quite bring that aspect of society into full view, because it would damn all their major policies.

Now this statement is a masterpiece of untestable assertions. No ad homs by a liberal (another untestable proposition) but would Stan like to produce some empirical evidence to support these sweeping generalisations? Otherwise some of us might be compelled to ad hom thoughts. Never expressed of course.

On the highway trust fund, I really don’t know. I’m going from cost/revenue per mile subsidies that show the feds build freeways and connectors even when traffic on them (and implied gas tax by cars on them) is way lower. They guarantee that general tax funds will be needed for maintenance far, far, into the future.

If we want this (or lower) gas tax, we need to build less federal projects (apparently not limited to “interstates” these days).

Worse, however, for his position: the Republicans are the party that is more sympathetic to corporate power and their lobbyists.

Up to there I thought you were making some reasonable points. But this sentence is at least as detached from reality as anything Reynolds wrote. In fact while the two parties have different corporate backers, both DO have corporate backing. And it’s not the case that the GOP corporate backers are any better funded than those who back the Democrats.

In today’s America, government benefits flow to large numbers of people who are encouraged to vote for politicians who’ll keep them coming. The benefits are paid for by other people who, being less numerous, can’t muster enough votes to put this to a stop.

If Reynold’s wrote this simplistic nonsense it’s a good job he’s got tenure because it’s not exactly evidence of high intellectual capacity. The benefits are paid for by other people. Who are these people who never voted for anyone but are apparently picking up the tab? And who are the people who are encouraged to vote for politicians in the hope of reward but make no net positive contribution by their labor or taxes. Of the 132 million who voted in the 2008 election precisely how many of them were net recipients of governmental largesse without any purpose?

@Stan ” A simple application
of Mill’s method of difference suggests the unprecedented government response to the ’29 downturn being the cause of an unprecedented lengthening of the downturn, thus creating the great depression.”

GDP growth after FDR took office was at record levels. If you want to look at earlier responses, then I think the monetarist (Friedman) theory has some weight. I think that the creation of the FDIC and stopping bank runs was very much a positive, with the rest of the New Deal a hodgepodge of plus and minus actions. Still, I would stand by the assertion that the record levels of poverty that cold not be handled by families, as in the past, was the impetus for some of the New Deal policies.

To all- I think it a great positive that most people acknowledge that teachers contribute to our country and should be counted among the maker group.

the fact of the matter is that it is impossible to escape paying taxes in the US

That’s true. But what is important here is how many people are net tax payers vs how many are net tax consumers. If the latter outnumber the former by too much, you get budget deficits.

It’s true that Joe Lowskill Worker pays some taxes, but it’s equally true that the taxes he pays do not compensate for the government services he uses.

This situation is unavoidable to some extent. There will always be some people who are net consumers of government services. But if their numbers swell past a certain point we face a financial crisis, and we’re already past that point.

Taylor apparently doesn’t grasp small details like rent seeking,crony capatilism, vote buying, what government spends the bulk of it’s revenues on ( aside from it’s legtimacy such as income redistribution) and being a net taxpayer. His premise is based on assumptions that aren’t valid and therefore his conclusion is flawed. Reynolds on the other hand does and his reference to 1937 is on the money.

@Brummagem Joe: Nothing new. Just something too often forgotten. This is why it’s even worth reading the classics now and again. Contrary to the progressive ideal, most people really never learn without regular reminding (myself included).

Glenn’s readers apparently have a great desire to express themselves, as indicated by how busy they’ve been posting comments and clicking red buttons here in the last few hours. Maybe they should ask Glenn why he has never allowed his readers to do that at his place.

Glenn implicitly encouraged his readers to comment here (link). Too bad the reverse is not possible.

the Republicans are the party that is more sympathetic to corporate power and their lobbyists.

I guess that is why Obama’s Administration is full of lobbyists, Goldman has given all that money to Obama, Enron gave a ton of money to Chuck Schumer, and both the current OMB director & White House Chief of staff used to manage hedge funds.

Hello John Corzine!

it also starts from a flawed premise: that people vote solely based on material gains that they think that they will get.

If you don’t think the people behind the Wisconsin recall effort aren’t doing it solely because of material gains they will get, you’re being intellectually dishonest.

@grumpy realist: I love this. Reynolds is so insecure that he has to bring his army of dittoheads or acolytes or sock puppets who have never visited this site before to make sure no one can see the messages from regular posters.

Yes, a real fighter in the marketplace of ideas, as long as no one is ever allowed to criticize his genius. Heh, indeed.

@JorgXMcKie: “I’m generally in favor of gas/diesel taxes that cover the cost of highway, street, etc building and maintenance so long as the ‘takers’ aren’t allowed to take any of it for mass transit, HSR, light rail, or any of the other much-loved attempts to decide where and when the proles may travel.”

Because freeways just spring up spontaneously when anyone wants to go somewhere? Because governments don’t determine where freeways and paved roads go?

Do you have to be stupid to be a libertarian, or do you just have to pretend to be?

I love this. Reynolds is so insecure that he has to bring his army of dittoheads or acolytes or sock puppets who have never visited this site before to make sure no one can see the messages from regular posters.

Do you have a rational thought in your head, or are you going to keep telling the world your feelings?

If the government spends x billions dollars year in and year out while taking in x-y dollars in taxes, it is a mathematical certainty that SOME people are “moochers”. It’s very possible, and I believe it to be the case, that all Americans are “moochers”. They’re mooching off the taxpayers of the future.

@Mike K: “The deduction has outlived its value as a subsidy. End it for property worth over $250,000.”

Let me guess — you live in Arkansas. Or Tennessee. Or Mississippi. So you know that the only proper mortgage interest deduction is the one that covers property in your neighborhood.

Check out real estate in any area where the majority of Americans live. Here in Southern California, $250,000 doesn’t buy a two-bedroom condo in a half-decent neighborhood. That’ goes for every other major city.

Not everyone wants to live in a swamp and eat possum. That’s why we’re not libertarians.

A big problem with Reynolds is that he promotes baloney and then refuses to take responsibility for doing so, even after it’s proven to be baloney (link). This goes hand-in-hand with him not allowing comments.

Denying that there are those who are consuming more value than they produce is simply stupid. It is a mathematical and empircal truth. Just because you refuse to actually do the math to show which person on the whole is taking, and which person on the whole is making, doesn’t make the final result any different. The old days of Federalism may not be coming back, but a collapse of the entitlement state is now inevitable. Enjoy what little time you have left.

@Herb: Which is to say: “O, S*t, voices from outside the bubble! Divert impulse power to shields, and set phasers to ‘annihilate’!”

Reynolds’s strength has always been in one-liner pointers to fuller thoughts. When he does do an essay, he generally does it in a place where comments are permitted. You can always send him an email, and he doesn’t hide the address.

I make less than a third of what I used to make a few years ago because of the housing bubble. Yes, even rich people quit building those second and third homes when the market went south. I was and still am a maker, but because of the economic conditions, I’ve had to become somewhat of a taker. You see, as a veteran, I take advantage of the health care benefit I earned by my service to our country. Wishing it weren’t so, doesn’t make it any easier, but still, I believe, just like the folks that paid all that money into the supposed “lockbox” of Soc. Security, that I’ve earned it.

Professor Reynolds is right…there are straight out takers out there, as well as makers. There are also people who do both. You hope they make more than they take. We do have too much government and we also have too much money involved in politics. Both parties take too much money from special interests. That needs to stop.

@Liberal Drone: If you read OTB with more regularity, you’ll know this is the first time a thread has ever come close to becoming an echo chamber.

@Ric Locke: “voices from outside the bubble!” If you’re referring to Reynolds/PJM readers, well…they are voices, that’s true. Their talk of “makers” and “takers,’ however, does not hint to being outside any bubble….

If anything, “Reynolds’s strength” is offering one-sided, simplified explanations to the kind of core audience that thinks the “MSM” isn’t mainstream and that the “Tea Party” is an actual party. In some corners, they call that weakness.

And this is when you say, “Oh yeah? Well those are liberal corners…..”

@jukeboxgrad: The present-day “blue states” are those that were once manufacturing powerhouses — producers, makers — and guess what? In those days they voted Republican.

Nowadays, of course, all that’s gone away. It’s too messy and dirty and polluting, and attracts all sorts of undesirables who don’t genuflect to an Ivy degree. Instead they’re all middlemen, financiers, and (above all) Government regulators. What the makers produce has to pass through them and get the cream skimmed off before getting to its ultimate recipient. That’s gone on since the beginning, especially as regards agricultural products, but taking away the “maker” functions exposes it quite clearly. Blue states, and cities, are richer and pay more taxes because they’re parasitic on the makers.

Writers and publishers are getting a very clear lesson in that matter. Amazon and others offer ways for a writer to gain an audience that goes around the New York publishing establishment, and the latter is screaming like stuck pigs. They’ve taken the lion’s share of the revenue stream for so long they feel themselves entitled in perpetuity, and the very hint that it’s possible to do without them is a threat — and, of course, an encouragement to those of us who don’t think the U.S. consists of New York, DC, and a few relatively unimportant latifundia.

That’s one example. There are others. I don’t feel the least embarrassed that Texas gets more federal funds than it sends, because when I pay $3.50 for a gallon of gas I know that a nickel goes to the owner of the oil-producing land, another nickel goes to the oil company, forty cents goes to local Government, and the rest to the Feds by one route or another. But I’m the “profiteer”, of course.

You know what would be a lot more helpful? If your neighbor could afford his house in the first place because the government wasn’t pushing no money down loans.

“there is no particular reason to assume that had we maintained pre-New Deal federalism that we would not have seen subsidies and the other programs described in the column developing at the state level”

Yes there is. Government intervention into the economy wouldn’t happen in all 50 states systemically, and as a result we would not have arrived at a system where Congress people vote for each other’s boondoggles until you have a $15 Trillion dollar deficit, or weapons systems built from parts in 40+ states for that matter.

Not being locked into retirement ponzi schemes would be another benefit of limiting Federal power. Competition among the states would dramatically reduce this sort of fiscal adventurism.

I’m sure some states would have gone down this route on their own, and in fact some did: We call them California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois and Massachusetts and they are all fiscal basket-cases just like Uncle Sam.

@steve: Yeah, until they retire at age 55, get free health insurance for the rest of their lives and take the retirement proceeds out of the local economy… At least that’s the way it works in my school district.

@Ric Locke: “Nowadays, of course, all that’s gone away. It’s too messy and dirty and polluting, and attracts all sorts of undesirables who don’t genuflect to an Ivy degree. ”

That’s your worldview? Manufacturing has dried up in this country because it’s too messy and an abundance of Ivy degrees? I love your “In those days they voted Republican.”

Yeah, then Nixon went to China, Mr. Factory worker’s job was filled by an entire village in Shenzen, and now Mr. Factory worker wears tricorn hats, demands to look at birth certificates and wonders why he can’t afford to buy all this cheap Chinese $hit…..

I’ve long thought that a number of those sorts of deductions should be adjusted according to the cost of living in the area. (Along with a few other things, like minimum wage. The present one is below poverty level in some areas of the country – and way above in others. OTOH, we could just drop minimum wage…)

But, really, that’s one of the major reasons I think federal power should be severely limited. Aside from certain things that do affect the whole country (national defense, etc.) , most of the federal laws/regs, etc. end up being totally inequitable simply because of differences in various areas. For instance, if the feds instituted a rationing of heating oil, it would harm those in the north, and those of us in Florida would just laugh and shrug. We may be “E pluribus unum” – but we won’t be for long, if we don’t recognize that the first part is something to be allowed as much as the second. (Oh – and the Dems aren’t any better at that then the Repubs. Just ask any gay or black conservative.)

“Great commercial for Detroit featuring Clint Eastwood. Wonder how that will go over in wingnuttia…”

A powerful commercial that shows how we can come back “to win the game” if only we only learn from the example of Chrysler and ignore bankruptcy law, screw the bond holders, and hand the company over to the very union that bankrupted it with no substantive changes. That will last, [snort] I half expected it to be a commercial for Obama 2012, which would be perfect in it’s presumably unintentional irony. Insipid dreck for sentimental fools that understand nothing is what that commercial is for, even it’s Clint Eastwood, so it must be cool.

I was always a bit sad that my degree came from Troy. I finished up my requirements there and was amazed at how little was actually required to get an ‘A’. But the degree certainly upped my salary.

I’m glad I didn’t have to really learn anything from the faculty, and this column is an example of why. I’ve learned much more from reading Glenn Reynold’s blog than any class I attended at Troy. And that includes the class in LINUX, the first three hour session of which consisted of a reading of the LINUX FAQ…

Progressives of the 30s made a lot of chances that were the wrong responses to the modern economy. FDR and other progressives of the era thought the new Third Way under trial in Italy and Germany was just swell. The reason one might think a smaller government might be better, is because there is no money in lobying a politicanwho lacks the the power to do the things the corporation wants done. The reason 50 state govrnment would be better is because a National corporation would have to spend 50X times money lobbying them all. MAth just isn’t a strong factor in your thinking is it.

And if bailing my neighbor out on his underwater mortgage was “good for me” to keep my house value up, I am perfectuly capable of deciding that and helping him out myself, without the need fo force. I think it would be ” good for you” to be forced to read the Federalist, be forced to own a gun, forced to abort your children and forced to pay for my luxury goods. Does that mean I have the right to make you if I get a majority in the government? INalienable rights also don’t figure much in your world view ether do they? Live and Let Live? Only if I live they way you want, and make the decsions you think best.

I wonder what they would make of it if we were to look past the $15T dollar light bill and look at the $100T Madoff scheme bearing down on us? You know, the one where we promise new investors that their money is being invested for when they retire when actually we’re just using it to pay the light bill and passing off the remainder as “returns” on the older member’s “investment”.

Undoing what Richard Epstein calls “the mistakes of 1937,” in which most of those limits on federal power were removed by the Supreme Court, would go far toward fixing the problem.

Awww…poor Glenn…someone should let him know that no matter what he and his fellow travelers do, the framework of the New Deal isn’t going anywhere…

Like the author of this piece, who undoubtedly enjoys a fine living from government subsidized tuition which drives the actual costs (not true costs) of education into the stratosphere.

That is rather amusing coming from a defender of Glenn Reynolds…

Here’s a crazy idea: maybe we could try not voting for them?

So I guess you don’t vote at all? Perhaps you could name some politicians who aren’t self-financing millionaires who don’t go around whoring for money…

All the public school teachers.

It really is quite difficult to have any kind of reasonable debate with someone who would write idiotic tripe like this…it is one thing to say that there are some bad public school teachers, but to say that they all are net recipients of governmental largesse without any purpose? Please…

Glenn implicitly encouraged his readers to comment here. Too bad the reverse is not possible.

To quote Reynolds: Heh, indeed…perhaps the fact that he wants his flock to invade this space shows how much this blog post got under his skin…

@Herb:
“Buy a Honda then and be comforted that you’re not helping Barack Obama.”

What, did you break into my Garage? I buy American cars that are actually made in America, as opposed to Vancouver. I own a Honda Accord, made in Marysville OH. A Honda CRV and a Honda Civic, made in East Liberty, OH.

I was an auto mechanic in a past life. I buy quality, not junk or glitz. I wouldn’t buy a Chrysler or a GM if you paid me. Ford maybe, but it would be a pity purchase, out of respect for them not taking a dime.

California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois and Massachusetts and they are all fiscal basket-cases

Yet they manage to continue to send welfare to red states…

The states don’t pay taxes, it’s the idiots that voted for the policies that are driving their own states off the cliff that paid these taxes. Yes they pay more. -> Because they get paid more. -> Because the cost of living is higher. -> due to the policies they vote for.

So, surely we can all get rich if we just raise everybody’s salary! Then we’ll pay more taxes. and…??? ….Profit!

I love this. Reynolds is so insecure that he has to bring his army of dittoheads or acolytes or sock puppets who have never visited this site before to make sure no one can see the messages from regular posters.

I was going to remark on the same thing, WR. I found it very odd that most of the regular commenters posts were hidden, and all the nutters were getting highlighted by extremely high numbers.

And I thought Season II of “The Walking Dead” was starting next week. Looks like all the zombies popped in here early.

The progressive philosophy has a never ending list of programs that they want the government to spend other peoples money on. The money from the regressive taxes (property, gas, sales, social security, etc) is already spent. The only source of new money is in raising the income tax. The fact that only 47% of people pay income tax is critical to this discussion. Agreed that capital gains tax is to low. Agreed that there should be less special exemptions on income tax. The problem remains, there is a never ending list of new government programs waiting in the wings and progressives will always want more tax money. At some point the people who actually pay income taxes will say no to more increases. It is happening now.

@Weisshaupt: The first paragraph of your post is absolute bullshit. During the early 30’s there was mild support in the US for Mussolini among some Italian Americans out of ethnic solidarity and among some right wingers because of his anticommunism. Hitler enjoyed similar support for much the same reasons, but less of it than Mussolini because even in the highly bigoted America of the day he was seen as an extremist. I am unaware of any support for either Hitler or Mussolini expressed by progressives and left-wingers.

As far as the rest of this post, goes, I wonder, Mr. Weisshaupt, if you’ve ever heard of the expression “cutting off your nose to spite your face”. The idea of helping underwater homeowners is supported by Marty Feldstein, one of Ronald Reagan’s economic advisors and a very prominent conservative economist, and Glenn Hubbard, an equally prominent conservative who was one of George W. Bush’s economics advisers. Both argue that if homeowners could refinance to take advantage of lower mortgage rates, it would free up income for consumer spending and thus stimulate the economy without requiring deficit spending by the government. I think this might be helpful, and even if it winds up benefitting people who made unwise decisions in buying their homes I think I’d gain more by this kind of action than I’d lose. This mean more to me than a feeling of righteous satisfaction at seeing spendthrifts lose their homes.

If I may, sir, I’d like to advise you to get a grip on yourself. If the votes are there the US government is going to do things I support and you don’t, for example increasing the minimum wage, raising taxes on high income earners, and implementing the Affordable Care Act. So we’re just going to have to see which side is stronger. Like it or not, we’re living in a democracy, and we have to accept the concept of majority rule.

And you guys are the great intellectuals, which is why you’ve all come running over here to vote down anyone who disagrees with your Brilliant Leader, just in case anyone might dare voice an opinion other than his.

I understand the twaddle you libertarians peddle. And it all comes down to “Me! Me! Me!”

Thanks, if I want to have that conversation, there’s a two year old next door.

The progressive philosophy has a never ending list of programs that they want the government to spend other peoples money on.

So why I wonder are Republicans trying to renege on the Defense sequestrations agreed in the summer?…..of course they’re progressives in disguise

The only source of new money is in raising the income tax.

Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP for three years have been at 60 year lows

The fact that only 47% of people pay income tax is critical to this discussion

.
Well it would be if it wasn’t a lie. This is the usual fantasy number that ignores payroll taxes. In fact the only people who don’t pay federal income taxes of one sort and another are either the very poor or seniors whose untaxed SS payments constitute a large part of their income.

American auto makes did indeed suck, for a long time. My wife had a ’92 Ford that was total junk. I drive a Nissan, she has a Honda.

The decline had less to do with unions, and more to do with the fall of the designers/engineers and the rise of the bean counters. Why make a car that lasts a decade yet can be paid off in four years when you can make a car that is falling apart in four years and needs to be replaced, leaving the consumer with a perpetual car payment?

Fast forward to 2012. The quality of American cars has improved dramatically. There is still a quality gap, but it is closing. There is a new generation of American muscle cars that a young guy can drive without being embarrassed.

This country was built on a can-do spirit. Yet the conservative message on the auto industry seems to be “Give up. We can’t get it done. The Japanese & Germans are just better than us.”

@john personna: For anyone who thinks that light rail, trains, and buses have no part in a transportation system, I suggest you visit Japan. One of the reasons that the Tokyo/Yokohama area has the density it does is because of the incredibly efficient public transportation.

Six million people a day ride the Tokyo subways. Three million people a day pass through Shinjuku train station. I suggest you think of any urban city in the US that has similar requirements.

“[On fascism] Of course big business and finance loathed the idea of the corporate state didn’t they?”

Why do we have a generation of people that seem incapable of understanding what Mussolini meant by “corporatism”? [Answer: because we have a generation of people that haven’t bothered to read Mussolini’s actual manifesto, which takes all of 30 minutes]

Here’s a clue: I know this may come as a surprise, but he wasn’t talking about a legally sanctioned profit seeking organizational structure, which wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense if you’ve ever read any of the Italian or German fascists ideas for economic “reform”, such as nationalization of large trusts and banks, the outlawing or outright confiscation of capital gains, ‘land reform”, and rent control.

The fascists despised capitalism as empty and decadent and democracy as inferior to a command based meritocracy. When Mussolini spoke of “Corporatism” he was talking about identifying/crafting/highlighting a unifying purpose that would motivate individuals to serve a greater cause in a nihilist, post religious world. That purpose was nationalism, which he correctly identified as far more reliable than the weak bonds of class identity promoted by International Socialism. The individual would belong to a collective greater than himself, a “body” that was promoted, represented, and advanced by the state. It was all mumbo jumbo to justify subverting the individual to the will of the state, but that’s what he meant.

“The reason one might think a smaller government might be better, is because there is no money in lobying a politicanwho lacks the the power to do the things the corporation wants done.”

When we did have small government, business could do whatever they wanted w/o interference. They owned the small government. As I have studied the 1700s, 1800s and early 1900s, it certainly looks to me as though we had many of the same problems we now have when we have large government. Depressions, recessions, banking crises, unemployment just to name some. We had protective tariffs that interfered with free trade. Small government made war just about as frequently as big government. Small government infringed upon personal rights and seemed no less likely to steal land, err exercise eminent domain.

With all due respect Stan, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Sure, the commies (aka “the competition”) didn’t care for the National Socialism heresy, but the people that expressed admiration for Mussolini and even Hitler reads like a who’s who of the NY publishing establishment. Or do you think that The New Republic, Margaret Sanger and George Bernard Shaw qualify as “progressive”?

“During the early 30′s there was mild support in the US for Mussolini among some Italian Americans out of ethnic solidarity and among some right wingers because of his anticommunism.”

At that time early 30’s Mussolini was supplying military ships and cooperation: sold Destroyers, patrol ships,projects for cruisers, and naval artillery etc. to the Soviet Union including NKVD … you just have to read about the cruiser Kirov for example, it even had engines diverted from an Italian cruiser in construction.
Fascist Italy was one of the first states to recognize Soviet Union btw.

USA have never been nearer Fascism than with Roosevelt, the Statist power he achieved was tremendous. It just enough to recognize Roosevelt Fascistic tendencies the norms and laws he enforced.
But this not only a Roosevelt thing, it was the progressives that supported the eugenics movement mostly. When the progressives think they are 100% right they turn fascists.
Roosevelt also explains the downhill course that USA have been making since then, only the technological advances offset it.

What we should really focus on instead of constantly bashing each other is how to reinvigorate America. Ideas like renegotiating the value of the dollar to make exports more competitive, investing in both green and brown forms of energy to make it easier to produce here, getting out of Afghanistan ASAP, and reducing the personnel in the Army and Marines as they eat up massive amounts of the defense budget.

Brummagem Joe: Please read more carefully. I specifically addressed regressive taxes, including payroll taxes. in my original comment. You excluded this in your selective quote and then suggested that I had made no reference to it.

The money from the regressive taxes (property, gas, sales, social security, etc) is already spent. The only source of new money is in raising the income tax. The fact that only 47% of people pay income tax is critical to this discussion.

“The fact that only 47% of people pay income tax is critical to this discussion.”

Keith Hennessey has gone over this. In order to get most of those to pay tax, you need to eliminate the personal deduction for income taxes, you need to get rid of the Social Security exemption and you need to eliminate the EITC, which was a Friedman inspired idea.

Critical to this discussion should be some basic math. If the trends from the last 30 years were to continue, income and wealth will be concentrated among even fewer people. How do we resolve that?

“The decline had less to do with unions, and more to do with the fall of the designers/engineers and the rise of the bean counters.”

The Japanese have bean counters too. But their contributions to quality control and efficient workflow, such as Toyota’s “Kanban” board, which is now hot in software projects, is the most likely reason for their success. Honda’s process of moving design innovations from sportier models (prelude, etc) to the Accord to the baseline Civic was a bullet proof way of controlling risk of their competitive edge.

Could American company’s have instituted such measures? Maybe, but I doubt it. I don’t have anything against Americans who make cars. I just like the Americans who are making cars in companies that care about management. GM and Chrysler’s problems are nothing if not management problems. A refusal to confront reality. A refusal to confront their unions.

Why make a car that lasts a decade yet can be paid off in four years when you can make a car that is falling apart in four years and needs to be replaced, leaving the consumer with a perpetual car payment?

Because the competition won’t? I have firsthand knowledge of several Honda’s that made it to 300k, and cars which made it to 200k are a dime a dozen. I’d have to go back to Chevy’s made in 1972, a Chevelle and an Impala to match that record.

Fast forward to 2012. The quality of American cars has improved dramatically. There is still a quality gap, but it is closing. There is a new generation of American muscle cars that a young guy can drive without being embarrassed.

Yes, and they are better than most of the overpriced Teutonic trash, but I don’t think they’ll be catching up anytime soon. Just compare the interiors. At least GM got rid of the Pontiac so we don’t have to be embarrassed for our friends that had the poor taste to buy an interior by Fisher Price. As for muscle cars, sure, but I’m not going to buy one for 45K.

This country was built on a can-do spirit. Yet the conservative message on the auto industry seems to be “Give up. We can’t get it done. The Japanese & Germans are just better than us.”

Anybody that says the Japanese or Germans are better than Americans at manufacturing should be asked by the Accord plant in Marysville was so successful that Honda decided it was cheaper to shut down the Japanese plant that made the same car and incur the extra cost of shipping the American versions half way around the world. Americans should be dominating manufacturing with their edge in robotics and industrial engineering. We manufacturing more even as we employ less in manufacturing. In the war between Chinese peasants and automation, automation wins.

The money from the regressive taxes (property, gas, sales, social security, etc) is already spent. The only source of new money is in raising the income tax.

I notice it doesn’t cross your mind to make the regressive taxes more progressive. Besides if you are actually concerned with raising revenue, then Obama is the candidate whose tax plan is best for reducing the deficit.

@grumpy realist: once again the tired cliched strawman that those who want less government want no government at all. This time with the added twist of adding drama in the form of atomic weaponry. Get real, Mr “realist”.

Well, that ship has sailed. Like it or not, that’s not the road we traveled. The American auto industry is rebounding. Yet many conservatives seem to be rooting for it to fail, just so they can say Obama was wrong.

@Stormy Dragon: Kasper Hauser claims that I’m engaging in personal attacks when I said that Instapundit’s article was junk. Honestly he could have just said we have a big bureaucracy due to industrial technology and a welfare state due to the breakdown of rural life and some people need help. Instead he complains about “moochers” as opposed to offering solutions to our problems.

@Ron Beasley: All Reynolds does when confronted is get passive-aggressive (like sending his howler monkeys to this thread).

I suspect that any attempt by any OTB author to object would just end with snotty link backs with the general tone of “here’s the alleged political “thought” going on at OTB. Shame it’s closer to Atrios than to Don Surber. Heh. Indeed”.

@Stormy Dragon: I did no such thing, but feel free to keep being just as wrong as Kaspar Hauser. If you want to know something about me in the future, howzabout you ask a question, rather than make an easily disprovable assumption?

B) You are not a proprietor of this blog, not are you an author. You have no authority or right to tell me to leave, nor do I care what your personal opinion of me is. If you have a problem, feel free to take it up with James, Steven or Doug. If any of them ask me to stop commenting here I will. Otherwise, settle the hell down.

And in true stormy dragon style, you missed the point by not actually reading what was written in your haste to regale the world with your opinion. I never claimed to be right. I pointed out that you ARE demonstrably wrong about me.

@Stormy Dragon: I don’t mind any of the new commenters, it’s only annoying b/c the current helpful/unhelpful settings don’t exactly work right with this many comments. They might be using just the difference between the two numbers, which is fine for most situations, but in a case like this could also be paired with a ratio of helpful to unhelpful as well.

@Hoyticus:
“why don’t you advocate an amendment to ban corporate money from politics? ”
Because it would be unenforceable? Didn’t McCain-Feingold attempt to remove the big money from politics and fail?

The next time someone thinks about designing a constitution, this should be addressed.

I suggest a division of powers where one branch (the house?) is clearly supreme in matters of the public purse and other branches (the president, senate and court?) dominate on other matters. Voting for the house should be restricted to citizens who are net contributors to the public purse.

Though Dr. Reynolds (and I) would be disqualified from voting for the house, I wonder if he would agree.

@Mike G.: I have no idea of what you mean by these phrases. Every developed country has a constitution, either named as such or called a basic law. It may not even exist in written form, but whatever its form it means a basic set of precedents and customs that underly the political structure. Having a constitution doesn’t guarantee liberty. Gibbon’s chapter on the constitution of the Roman republic after its takeover by Augustus describes it very nicely “as an absolute monarchy disguised by the forms of a commonwealth”, and the same can be said of the constitution of the Soviet Union enacted during the height of Stalin’s purges. To repeat, having a constitution doesn’t guarantee liberty.

Then there’s your bone chilling warning of the US turning into a “Socialist Democracy”, like all those horrible countries in Europe. I hate to tell you this, but you’re living under socialism now. You have publicly owned and controlled streets, schools, public safety departments, and, most likely, water and sewer systems. If you’re in the active duty military or if you’re a veteran, your medical care is directly controlled by the government. Somehow you’re doing OK despite this socialist tyranny, at least to the extent of having internet service or being able to use the computers in a socialist library. So I suggest you look up the word “socialist”, and try to commit its definition to memory. Then you won’t post any more misinformed rants like the one I’m responding to. I apologize for ending the last sentence with a preposition. It’s probably due to my poor education in a socialist grade school.

If one dissects the Federal expenditures in total vs. the amount spent on Constitutionally required functions of the Federal Government he will see a lot of taking and giving activities going on with the difference.

@LL: You’re perfectly right about the eugenics movement. It was supported by many progressives, and it served, I think, as a justification for Nazi policies. I don’t admire the progressives much. Many of them, including Woodrow Wilson, were racist jerks.

On the other hand, you’re dead wrong about Mussolini. He rose to power because of Italy’s fear of communism and governmental collapse, and he often protested to Hitler about the strains the Hitler-Stalin pact was placing on his political movement. His collaboration with the Soviet Union on economic projects during the period you mention did not make him a communist, and neither did Hitler’s alliance with the Soviet Union at the start of World War II. It was business, as the guy said to Michael Corleone.

Since this blog seems to have been invaded by Instapundit groupies, here’s a few questions for you guys. What’s your opinion of the so-called pro-life movement? How did you feel about the government, under George Bush, attempting to dictate the medical treatment of Mrs. Schiavo? Do you like the effective suspension of habeas corpus and of the Sixth Amendment under the Bush administration, and the continuation of these policies by President Obama? Did you feel that the Bush administration’s use of torture was legitimate? In short, are you really a lover of liberty, as the libertarians claim, or simply a greedhead trying to hold on to your buck?

@M.: Shaw was an all-purpose asshole. He admired every evil person of his day. The same is true of Margaret Sanger – as far as I know, she favored birth control to keep the lower classes from propagating. So what? I can’t figure out what point you’re trying to make.

Motor Trend lists the base price of a 2012 Camaro at $23,280. Sure you can spend more, a lot more if you want a Z1, but it’s kind of curious that you are doubling the price of one to support your argument. Likewise the base price of a Challenger is listed @ $24,995.

In 2012 a young guy can but a cool American car that is built well, in this country, for a reasonable price. That seems like a good thing to me.

Sounds like you are one of the guys rooting for the US auto industry to fail so you can say Obama was wrong.

I think for clear “failure” you’d need a concrete example. At best you can only say that the big ticket items, economy, etc., would have been “even better” under some other plan.

I still am a lapsed Republican, now independent. I’d like to hear a better, rational, plan. But you know, superstition isn’t going to draw me back. “Cut taxes and this time it will work” doesn’t cut it for me. Not with tax rates already low and deficits quite high.

Yeah team! I mean this had so much to do with Obama. He’s like the man!

GM & Chrysler alive

Yeah the US Treasury owning 25% stock and losing $26 billion in a GM! I think you should keep clapping about that. Really. By the way, how long should the federal government own stock in an auto company? Another year? Another ten? In perpetuity?

Dark times indeed for conservatives

Right. I think Obama should run on owning car companies, ignorning bankruptcy laws, the “stimulus” which raised unemployement, the civilian labor force being at a 30 year low of 63.7% in January, 6 million fewer jobs in America today than there were before the recession started, and 14 million people added to food stamps since Obama was sworn in.

How many times do you have to be told the auto bailout was bi-partisan? You may wish for some Tea Party government to have been in place instead of Bush’s second term, but they weren’t. And Bush gave the car companies bridge funding with the understanding that it would get them over the hump and into the Obama term, where they’d get the rest of the money.

If conservatives had really believed in orderly shutdown, they would have started that when they had control, in the Bush years.

That they didn’t isn’t really a surprise, politically. No politician wanted to have the bankruptcy and dissolution of GM on their record.

Um, ok, how about this: 4 straight years of $1 trillion dollar plus deficits and having 87.9 million people who are not working. The largest population of non-workers the country has seen since the government started keeping records in 1975. The labor force is now smaller than when GW Bush was inagurated.

Note: The unemployment rate was 4.6% and the deficit 260 billion when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007.

Or how about the double digit costs increases in health insurance premiums?
How about companies saying they’re going to drop health insurance coverage because of Obama care?

Cut taxes and this time it will work” doesn’t cut it for me. Not with tax rates already low and deficits quite high.

Tax rates are not “low” when you’re part of the top 10% paying all the taxes.
Truse me.

Um, ok, how about this: 4 straight years of $1 trillion dollar plus deficits and having 87.9 million people who are not working. The largest population of non-workers the country has seen since the government started keeping records in 1975. The labor force is now smaller than when GW Bush was inagurated.

Complete fail. I mean you insult every one of your readers. You ACTIVELY ignore the 2007/2008 crash, and EXPLICITLY set your baseline at the GWB inauguration.

Ummm, yea. But the citizens of states do pay taxes. I know I will be writing a large check in April. And those taxes tend to flow from blue states to red, where they support government services provided to the citizens of those states.

Never mind that Chrysler has been bailed out by the federal goverment twice. They have a great commercial!

And they are still in business. And they were profitable in 2012. And those workers still have jobs. And and this critical industry is still a going concern in our country. And the vendors that support Chrysler are still in business. And those workers still have jobs. Is this too complicated for you?

And yes, it was a cool commercial.

Where is the irrational hatred for banks that got bailouts? Oh yea, that was Bush, the auto industry was Obama. Got it.

Also, I find it funny that they’re crowing about GM when there are fewer dealerships and employees than when Obama took office.

Well of course they have. This was GM’s central problem too much manufacturing and distribution capacity. One would have to have the brain of a hamster to think the aim of the restructuring was to actually increase or maintain capacity as you are suggesting.

I was going to remark on the same thing, WR. I found it very odd that most of the regular commenters posts were hidden, and all the nutters were getting highlighted by extremely high numbers.

It’s just a different majority trumping the current one. On any given post, one set of “Regular” commenters consistently votes down another set of “Regular” commenters just because they disagree with their viewpoint. Only a few of the comments that are voted into being hidden are truly trollish comments. Consequently some trollish comments agreeing with the “Regular” majority end up with positive net votes. Its good to see the light dawning on some how the voting is being used in a suppressive manner by the “Regular” majority.

And they are still in business. And they were profitable in 2012. And those workers still have jobs. And and this critical industry is still a going concern in our country. And the vendors that support Chrysler are still in business. And those workers still have jobs. Is this too complicated for you?

Ah, are conservatives “big” voters? You sound a bit like a guy with a size complex.

in 10 years GM will still have the same problems

Really? You can read the future? What an amazing guy you are. Perhaps you could explain, in a manner that would not get you laughed out of a meeting of mid level employees in corporate America, exactly why they will have the same problems in 10 years.

Also, I find it funny that they’re crowing about GM when there are fewer dealerships and employees than when Obama took office.

There has been quite a bit of contraction since the ’08 meltdown, which did not take place on Obama’s watch. The US auto industry is rebounding, no matter how much the right wishes otherwise.

The US auto industry is rebounding, no matter how much the right wishes otherwise

If by “rebounding” you mean fewer people working in the sector and the federal government losing $10’s of billions and the companies “profiting” because they are using government to subsidize or operate by ignoring some or all of their costs, yeah, it is all like fantastic.

Also, I find it funny that they’re crowing about GM when there are fewer dealerships and employees than when Obama took office.

Well of course they have. This was GM’s central problem too much manufacturing and distribution capacity. One would have to have the brain of a hamster to think the aim of the restructuring was to actually increase or maintain capacity as you are suggesting.

Perhaps you could explain, in a manner that would not get you laughed out of a meeting of mid level employees in corporate America, exactly why they will have the same problems in 10 years.

Um, because GM’s labor costs, including benefits, average $56 an hour for its entire U.S. hourly workforce, according to the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan. GM has been paying its union workers 47 percent more than Volkswagen AG and Hyundai Motor Co. pay their U.S. staff.

On any give post, one set of “Regular” commenters consistently votes down another set of “Regular” commenters just because they disagree with their viewpoint… . Its good to see the light dawning on some how the voting is being used in a suppressive manner.

Well, actually, Rodney, I disagree with this. In my experience here, we normally don’t “hide” too many comments, and rarely do I find “hidden” comments that shouldn’t have been hidden. It’s not the regular posters who stifle dissent around here; it’s the trolls from other blogs who try to do so.

This was GM’s central problem too much manufacturing and distribution capacity. One would have to have the brain of a hamster to think the aim of the restructuring was to actually increase or maintain capacity as you are suggesting.

Actually, GM’s “central problem” is labor & benefit costs.

I never suggested that capacity should be maintained or inscreaed. What is comical is that the left is crowing about investing $50 billion in auto bailouts while 300,000 people + lost thier jobs.

Dude, your strategy is transparent. You cite a fact or two which you know, you must know having done that much reading, does not tell the story. They you tell a different story.

You say “how can my story be wrong? my fact was right?”

If you want to be taken seriously you’ll have to do better. You’ll have to work things like the actual Great Recession into your article about jobs. You won’t friggin’ ask about jobs relative to 2004, 4 years before the onset of said recession.

I agree that we don’t hide too many comments overall, mostly as there isn’t normally enough voting to trigger it.

and rarely do I find “hidden” comments that shouldn’t have been hidden. It’s not the regular posters who stifle dissent around here; it’s the trolls from other blogs who try to do so.

I disagree with this. In the hidden comments from regulars that I view, many have been just a view point that disagrees with the “Regular” majority… and many times the “Regular” minority ends up with a negative net without triggering the hiding. I assumed the “Regular” majority would disagree with this as it ‘outs’ their practice.

We do, do a good job at voting down the trolls into obscurity, but the majority/minority practice is widespread in my observations.

Er….these are a subset of over capacity.They had too many employees and they were paying them too much to make too many cars.

I never suggested that capacity should be maintained or inscreaed.

You said the fact that GM had fewer workers and dealers represented a failure of Obama’s policy. Ergo success by your own definition would have meant maintenance of existing levels of employment/ distribution.

And whose changing the subject, I’m addressing a specific and incredibly stupid claim you made. You asked for proof you’d said something stupid and I merely provided it.

PS: The entire leadership of the Democratic party supported the war in Iraq and the Democrats in Congress increased funding for the war in Iraq every year they were in control.

Example: Can you tell the story of Colin Powel’s 2003 speech to the United Nations, and how it relates to Congressional support for the war?

I was against the war myself, and was suspicious about the Bush Administration’s claim that UN Inspectors just couldn’t find all the WMDs … but you have to be playing your particular game, with some facts but not all, to just pretend that Democrats just supported the war.

We now know they were manipulated, as was the US population, with a false fear of “a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

We now know they were manipulated, as was the US population, with a false fear of “a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

How many times did the Bush administration use the expression “Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction” in the runup to the war – has anyone every been able to tally them all? I remember speculation on Fox about Iraqi agents being poised to attack major cities from inside the US using model airplanes and small rockets equipped with poison gas.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Dude. With retrospect we now know that is exactly what happened.

It’s conservative CYA to pretend anything else. But then, you can do CYA, can’t you?

Democrats did support the war. You want to pretend they were lied to or tricked.

They were not.

Example:

Clinton told King: “People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”

Example:

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there’s clear inconsistency between what’s been found in Iraq and what we were told.

And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn’t just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.

You not liking the conclusion from facts does not mean anyone is being dishonest.

Yep, the trillion dollars we added to the deficit to turn Iraq into a pro-Iranian state was pretty silly. I still chuckle about it. And cooking the books so that the next President took the political hit for adding it to the deficit? Hilarious.

Really dude, the Bush administration was flying planeloads of US taxpayer cash into Iraq. 15 billlion of it simply vanished into thin air. Why the fury over investing billions into the auto industry?

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

Jay! That’s another one of your incomplete facts that completely distorts the story. We’re on to you, man.

Following the advice of company lawyers, Michael Smith, the journalist who first reported on the Downing Street Memo, has said that he protected the identity of his source by reproducing all documents and returning the ‘originals’ back to the source. In some cases, a document was retyped from a photocopy, and the photocopy destroyed.[41] This has led some to question the document’s authenticity, but no official source has questioned it, and it has been unofficially confirmed to various news organisations, including the Washington Post, NBC, The Sunday Times, and the LA Times. Several other documents obtained by Smith, and treated similarly (see below), were confirmed as genuine by the UK Foreign Office.[42]

That actually sums it up pretty well. One of the dynamics I think that happens is that as one side becomes dominant in numbers, it carries along enough of its baggage (zealots, moonbats, wingnuts, etc..) to shout down the opposition (via comments, not just voting) that the ‘reasoned’ individuals in the minority clam up or seek greener pastures. I’m not just speaking about OTB in this respect.

“no new nuclear plants, no offshore oil drilling, no new power plants pretend you favor “jobs””

1) With the surge in natural gas production, nuclear plants are too expensive to build. Natural gas plants are cheaper, so that is where the industry wants to go.

2) We have levels of natural gas and oil being produced that are at 20-30 year highs. Offshore drilling is down because natural gas prices went down so far it does not pay. Also, Brazil was paying higher than usual market rates for drilling rigs, taking away a lot of the rigs. (Read Hamilton. His commenters include a bunch of folks in the oil and gas industry. Excellent comments and links)

3) Power plant construction is up. Coal plants have some issues, and regulations are partly to blame, but low natural gas prices make the economics favor gas.

To whit: as an MA native, Mitt Romney was a Republican we could disagree with, but there was a clear understanding that as Governor he was interested in perusing social and economic polices that would have net positive effects on the state (e.g. MA healthcare reform, removal of corporate tax loopholes, etc).

That actually sums it up pretty well. One of the dynamics I think that happens is that as one side becomes dominant in numbers, it carries along enough of its baggage (zealots, moonbats, wingnuts, etc..) to shout down the opposition (via comments, not just voting) that the ‘reasoned’ individuals in the minority clam up or seek greener pastures. I’m not just speaking about OTB in this respect.

Unfortunately the arc of Republican politics serves as a parallel. As I’ve said before, the people I regard as reasonable, who can balance broad facts, have been shouted out as RINOs. The feedback loop has been to empower Newt and Jay.

I mean friggin’ hell, look at how alike those two are. One at the small end of the stage, one at the large.

In some states, coal is essentially banned or is having a very difficult time getting permitted. In California, for example, there is a de facto ban on new coal-fired plants resulting from a performance standard that requires all new base-load generation to produce no more greenhouse gas emissions than a new natural gas combined cycle plant.[viii] Washington State also has a de facto ban on new coal-fired plants

I agree with you that it is a terrible idea to increases taxes on those who are just getting by. The EITC especially has been very effective in directing funds to those in need.
The 47% comment is pointing out that the planned increase in tax revenue is only originating from income tax and that less than half the country pays this tax. Covering the current level of spending will be paid for by this 47%. Any new programs / spending will be paid for by this 47%. Make no mistake; the entire 47% will be required to pay more taxes just to cover the money already borrowed.
So the political question is: at what point is it no longer acceptable to take from one group to give to another? Reynolds is suggesting now, not because of dollar amount or cause, but because the receiving group (both those in need and those who are connected) has begun to view this taking as right. I agree with Reynolds position but disagree with his reasoning. I believe the point is now, not because there is a lack of need for new taxes, but because our politicians refuse to cut luxury spending as a first step to cover necessary spending. (Luxury spending: NEA, Paying people to not grow food, Halliburton, etc. Everyone has their own list.). If politicians are never forced to cut spending, they never will.

1) After the oil spill, there was a moratorium on new drilling. Old drilling is still going on. Levels are mostly being dictated by economic considerations.

2) There are other reasons for delaying the Pipeline, as was initially advocated for by the Governor of Nebraska. Given that we are in the middle of an oil and natural gas glut, I fail to see the need to rush.

3) Despite the efforts? Heads I win, tails you lose? What are your metrics here? Objectively, production is way up.

Bonus- The construction of new plants is way up. Please see referenced article. Old plants are constantly being shut down as they age.

Given that we are in the middle of an oil and natural gas glut, I fail to see the need to rush

Steve,
if we’re in such a “glut” why is the price of a gallon of gas up from $1.87 when Obama was sworn in?

How about this?

Electric bills have skyrocketed in the last five years, a sharp reversal from a quarter-century when Americans enjoyed stable power bills even as they used more electricity
…
the future of energy prices and the upcoming closure of more polluting coal plants makes the long-term outlook cloudy for consumers.

@Dennis: Yes, if corporations can’t use money as speech the same should apply to unions. But also we can’t ignore the fact that corporations and unions of various types support both parties. The problem is the corrosive influence of money in politics, the exact sources are of secondary concern the primary is that money isn’t speech.

@Jay: You cannot possibly be serious. The chart you linked to shows a massive price drop in 2008, during the recession as demand dropped. It’s pretty basic logic that if the country was in recession from late 2007 to mid (?) 2009 and it’s not in recession anymore, that pretty much the definition of the “economy improved”. That’s what no longer being in a recession means. As to gas prices being lower some random time in the past, I can’t imagine why anyone would think that shows anything significant.

“if we’re in such a “glut” why is the price of a gallon of gas up from $1.87 when Obama was sworn in?”

Natural gas prices are way down. Oil better reflects international demand. (Supply and demand both contribute to price.) There is also the refinery issue, though we are now exporting gasoline so I assume that is less of an issue at the moment.

The author of this article redicules Reynolds position that with less gov spending and regulation, mooching and corruption is lessened. But simple economics would indicate that Reynolds is completely right. With less gov favors to dole out, the supply of gov favors is lessened. If demand is unchanged, the price of getting gov favors will go up, since the same number of people are bidding for a lesser amount of favors. This will make the return on seeking gov favors less, therefore encouraging more poeple to make their money through the marketplace, rather than through gov rent seeking.

He also redicules Reynolds assertion that devolving power to the states will lessen corruption, by saying that state gov can be corrupt also. But again he fails to understand simple economics. If you are a big corporation, it is much more cost effective to bribe one federal burocrat, than to bribe 50 state burocrats, even if the fed burocrat demands 10 times the price, so any fed subsidy or regulation is much more cost effective to seek than any at the state level.. He also ignores another important point. With power and funding in state hands, states are in competition with each other to attract producers, to help pay their bills, and repel moochers, to lessen their expenses. This interstate competition tends to countaract the natural tendency of gov to tax producers and pay off moochers, because states that end up caving into the leftist mochers too badly, like CA and ILL end up going broke. The fed gov however is a monopoly that is not subject to that constraint, since there is nowhere for producers to run, unless they want to leave the country. This is the main reason why big gov statists always want every program to be at the federal level.

In fact it is this authors collumn that is actually a mess, not that of Reynolds.

I agree. Glenn Reynolds just shows that although academia is getting pretty bad, it still contains some pockets of excellence. Not all gov workers are bad. The real key is whether the value they return is worth their expense. Personally, I would rather have one Glenn Reynolds, that 100 Femininst history professors. The real pity is academia seems to be much better at producing leftist idiots that produce nothing of value, than at producing more real thinkers like Glenn Reynolds.

On December 19, George W. Bush announced that he had approved the bailout plan, which would give loans of $17.4 billion to U.S. automakers GM and Chrysler, stating that under present economic conditions, “allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action.” Bush provided $13.4 billion now, with another $4 billion available in February 2009. Funds would be made available from the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. General Motors would get $9.4 billion, and Chrysler $4 billion.

As an independent, I couldn’t agree more with your blog, Steven. It’s great to see decent policy analysis rather than the the ideologue mentality too common – especially in an election year,when rationality is, as usual, usurped by narrowly focused partisanship on both sides of the aisle. Dammit, I’m going to hate teaching ANG this Spring…
Anyhow, “Nihou” from China – this is the first time in three decades that they’re going to have similar issues – Shanghai (Elitist) vs. Qingchong (Populist) factions. Should be interesting; odds are the Populist faction wins. And they have a rule that anyone over 65 can’t run for the Working Committee of the Politburo – maybe a good idea elsewhere, LOL…